The potential threat of massive fines for non-compliance is a key concern for religious groups and businesses.

WASHINGTON — A religious-freedom attorney says the threat of massive fines is causing anxiety among religious groups and businesses that object to government-mandated insurance coverage of contraception.

Eric Baxter, senior counsel with the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that aims to defend religious liberty nationwide, said many concerns focus on financial questions.

“How do you take account of the risk that you could have millions of dollars in fines imposed against you?” he told EWTN News Nov. 16.

“That anxiety is only increasing as the implementation date approaches.”

The Department of Health and Human Services has mandated that most employers of 50 employees or more provide no co-pay insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-inducing drugs. Employers in violation face fines of $100 per employee per day.

Catholic organizations are among those particularly affected by the mandate because of their religious and moral objections to the drugs and procedures covered.

Archbishop Aquila

“The HHS mandate is a seriously troubling kind of religious discrimination,” Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver told EWTN News Nov. 16. “The mandate requires Catholic institutions to choose between providing charity to the poor and following the definitive teaching of the Church.

“In that sense, the poor, the elderly, the sick and children are the truest victims of the mandate.”

Baxter added that the mandate places a “significant burden” on religious organizations’ ability to plan, budget and hire.

“Most organizations are already trying to get their insurance plans, for example, in the next year in place,” he said.

The mandate began to take effect for many employers on Aug. 1. A “safe harbor” provision from the Obama administration delays the implementation for religiously affiliated nonprofits until Aug. 1 of next year. The administration has promised a broader religious accommodation, but its details are still unclear, and the preliminary plans appear not to meet the needs of conscientious objectors.

Baxter said there is likely some concern among organizations that are unsure whether they are exempt from the mandate. The exemption applies only to nonprofit organizations that primarily serve and employ their co-religionists and have the inculcation of religious values as their primary purpose.

“The standards of whether you hire and serve primarily people of your own faith are really very vague,” he said. “How can a church define who it serves? Is it a 51% standard? There’s just no clarity about what these things mean.”

Archbishop Aquila said the mandate’s exemption is “particularly troubling” because it defines religious institutions “almost exclusively as houses of worship” and ignores “the incredible charitable work that the Catholic Church does in America.”

“All of the Church’s charitable institutions and many of its schools face real discrimination,” he said.

Baxter said it is “unclear” what it means for the exemption to apply only to organizations that inculcate religious values.

Enforcement agencies “could take a very aggressive standard on that,” he said.

The Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Treasury all have regulations requiring the controversial coverage.

However, Baxter said he is not sure if the federal departments have different enforcement standards.

“Basically, all organizations will be subject to the same requirement,” he said. “The different organizations would have the ability to construe the regulations differently.”

Archbishop Aquila sees a danger in the ability of the federal government to define mandated coverage as it desires.

“The First Amendment is a promise that no one should have to choose between a public life and their religious integrity,” he said. “Without the consent of our elected officials, the mandate can change in troubling ways. This kind of unchecked discrimination is dangerous.”

Possible Solutions

Baxter said one solution to the conflict is to expand the religious-employers exemption to mirror the broader exemption currently in U.S. law.

“The other option would be to get rid of the contraceptive mandate altogether, although that seems highly unlikely with the Obama administration remaining in office for another four years,” he said.

Legal challenges against the mandate are proceeding in federal courts across the country. There are at least 40 cases with over 110 plaintiffs, including Catholic dioceses, charities, universities and health-care systems. Several Protestant colleges and businesses have also filed suit.

The suits contend that the mandate violates the U.S. Constitution and federal religious-freedom protection laws.

The Becket Fund, the Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Center for Law and Justice are among the legal groups representing the various plaintiffs.

Comments

More and more, grows the greater need for prayer. Prayer in the direction and support of the Becket Fund, and those like it, who are in the thick of it; Defending the rights and freedom of religion.

Posted by lroy on Saturday, Nov 24, 2012 9:32 AM (EDT):

There are two other options-become secularized or simply shut down for good.

Posted by Elizabeth B. Schnepp on Friday, Nov 23, 2012 7:33 PM (EDT):

It scares me that our government is coming not only in to our bedrooms but into our schools, hospitals and other organizations and dictating how we are to live. How like Nazi Germany this is. Let us all pray that those on the frontlines have the courage and fortitude to secure the freedom of religion for us all.

Posted by James Graham on Friday, Nov 23, 2012 11:38 AM (EDT):

Could Catholic Religious organisations & businesses divide their employees into seperate groups of 49 employees each and so stay under the 50 limit?

Posted by Fr Peter Brockhill on Thursday, Nov 22, 2012 8:50 PM (EDT):

Dear Editor.
I am a priest in New Zealand. In my country issues such as contraception, sterilization and abortion, and also a current Bill before our House of Parliament to redefine Marriage, are all voted on in the House according to Members’ consciences, that is they are “conscience votes”. This is in contrast to “confidence and supply votes” which are much more voted on according to Party policy. My point is that such issues are decided on differently from other issues.
It’s one thing to make these things legal and another to impose them on a country’s populace and to compel them to in some way co-operate in the practice of them. As far as I can see what your government is trying to do with it’s HHS (contraceptive) mandate is to impose conformity and compliance on matters that have traditionally been left to one’s conscience. In fact I think your Supreme Court, or any nations’ final legislative body, would be loathe to impose such conformity and I think that this is where the argument and defence against such conformity should be centered.
This is to say that while the objection on the grounds of Freedom of Religion is certainly valid it doesn’t in fact get to the nub of the matter. Pursuing the line that such matters,- contraception, sterilization and abortifacients (I’ll leave abortion out of it for now)- have always been left free for a person to decide on according to their conscience seems to me to be more to the point. Ultimately the question will come down to this. Besides doing a diservice to all those businesses who want to follow their consciences but who aren’t a religious institution, following the freedom of religion argument is only delaying the inevitable, and may even be mudding the waters beforehand.
As mentioned above I think the freedom of conscience argument is also one that the Supreme Court would find irrefutable.
Fr Peter Brockhill.
Opunake.
New Zealand.

Posted by Dave Rusch on Thursday, Nov 22, 2012 3:56 PM (EDT):

The final answer - refuse to pay the fines and take the result. If it is jail then so be it - I’ll go along. We cannot comply in any way.

Posted by florin on Thursday, Nov 22, 2012 9:33 AM (EDT):

Nov. 22th: I wish people would stop calling this the ‘contraception’ mandate…it is about so much more! Whenever you say the word ‘contraception’ people, even Catholics, say it’s no big deal..but if you tell them the Mandate includes Catholic agencies paying for insurance for abortifacient drugs, their response is different; and when you go on to tell them that Obama has redefined just what a Catholic Institution/Agency is…he declares it is one that hires only Catholics - tell them this, especially if the person is a non-Catholic working at a Catholic agency, and the response is one of fear and anger; Obama could also decide that in order to be a Catholic agency,one must serve only Catholics…that will wake people up for sure!!! This is all about Religious Freedom…and we need to stand up now and let our voices be heard or it will be too late…

Posted by Melissa on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2012 7:30 PM (EDT):

What happens if the Catholic organizations simply refuse to buy insurance that pays for contraceptives, and refuse to pay the fines? I’m thinking that a little civil disobedience might be in order here.

I am currently reading a great just published biography of St. Thomas Becket by John Guy. It makes me ask if anything has changed much since 1170 A.D. and the desire of governments to tyrannize over the Church. A few words from the book puts it all in a nutshell: “Henry (II)‘s desire was that his archbishop should obey him in all things.”
One could easily write today of Obama—and America’s political left—that their desire is to make the Church obey them in all things and that they regularly complain—as did Henry II—“Oh why is it that you won’t do what I want?”
Let’s hope the First Amendment and the courts can protect Catholics and the Church from modern-day Henry IIs for, sadly, there are very many Catholic voters only too willing to sell out their Faith and their Church if the price is right.

Posted by mike robertson on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2012 2:25 PM (EDT):

If someone was trying to put Church charities and other institutions out of business, they would devise something like this immoral law. Only God knows the hearts of those in the immoral executive branch of the government in Washington DC. We should not, however, be surprised at this law coming from such people. The leader of the executive branch favors killing of children in the womb and legal killing of those outside of the womb who have just survived the attempt to kill them in their mom’s womb. He also thinks God is wrong and he is right as to what constitutes marriage. So it is logical that such a person and those in his administration would support this anti-Church legislation. Catholic democrats have a lot to answer for when we see the full ramifications of this monstrous law. They voted for the candidate supporting the above-described evils-all in exchange for the Almighty Buck.

Posted by Linda Ill on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2012 1:12 PM (EDT):

This Socialist government WANTS church charities to shut down so that all the people served be the Church will become dependent on the government.

Solution: REFUSE TO PAY THE FINES AND CONDUCT BUSINESS AS USUAL!

Posted by D. Stump on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2012 12:20 PM (EDT):

And…if Catholic Charities, hospitals, schools and universities etc only served and hired Catholics wouldn’t they be sued, in a heartbeat, for discrimination?

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.